Talk:Battle of Verdun/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Battle box?

Most other battles have a box with info but this doesn't. Should it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.24.105 (talk • contribs)

What box? Is it the sidepare? It should be there. It is like a quick reference to what happened, who took part, when and how many versus how many. Dogmanice 23:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle Box Oddity

I notice in the battle box it says that the French had 30,000 troops and suffered 310,000 casualties. That doesn't make any sense.

Only the French could manage that. ;-) Seriously though, looking through a half dozen sites on Google, there are none that estimate the size of the French army at Verdun, it's probably impossible to know exactly how many troops were actually involved in the battle. PBS is a reliable reference for the casualties though http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/maps/maps_verdun.html.

Well the battle was almost a year long, the strenght of the french and german forces most have changed many times. Carl Logan 14:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"Only the French could manage that" sure and only stupid kids cannot figure the 30,000 are the original troops the first day of the battle. 310,000 being the total loss as the battle did not lasted one day and a battle includes reinforcement waves joining days, weeks or months later after the beginning as they are freed from other cleared fronts. so next time use your brain a little more einstein. Shame On You 17:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect number of casulties etc.

I think that the exact numbers of casulties, killed or wounded is incorrect from various sources because the troops at Verdun were continually rotated. In my history text book (The Great War: Third Edition. Mark McAndrew, David Thomas & Philip Cummins, Published by Cambridge University Press it states:

"it has been estimated that almost the entire French army served in the defence of the town at some time during 1916."

because of this information I conclude that most figures about this battle are estimates.

Yes, I think so. In the Battle of Moscow, the table also indicates an incorrect number of German Deaths, but the numbers are closer. And I don't think German troops deployed 1,200,000 soldiers at the same time in front of Moscow.

Better solution for Battle of Verdun would be the same than Battle of Stalingrad, only with the name of the armies involved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.57.69.176 (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

They shall not pass

The Battle of Verdun popularised the phrase "Ils ne passeront pas" ("They shall not pass") in France, uttered by Robert Nivelle, but often incorrectly attributed to Philippe Pétain. Can we get a source for this? What I've heard (from a source that I would consider quite reliable - but not available on the web) is that Petain said that.. 74.108.47.35 10:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the book handy at the moment, but I'm 99% sure that the above statement can be quoted from Alistair Horne's Price of Glory. My copy is loaned out currently; can any one confirm this?Grheinfrank 17:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)--Grheinfrank 17:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Page 231 of the 1993 Penguin paperback:

It was he [Nivelle], not Pétain as is sometimes thought, who gave birth to the immortalised challenge at Verdun: Ils ne passeront pas!

Horne gives no specific references; his sources are presumably the biographies of Nivelle he lists as the general sources for chapter 19. Gdr 17:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Longest Battle in History

The first paragraph said it was the longest, whereas the next said it was arguably the longest in the war.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.43.255.76 (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Battle for Leningrad was going over 2,5 years. Elk Salmon 14:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Verdun is World War I. Leningrad is World War II. We are referring only to World War I. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Roads

In "Precursor to the battle", this article mentions the only road into Verdun as a reason why it was a vulnerable target, but later in the same section, it refers to Verdun as the center of a major rail system. What's the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.190.75 (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Time to restrict update access to this article ?

Every day there are multiple malicious updates to this article by anonymous editors. WWI battles seem to be a favourite target for these morons. Can we get access restricted to only allow registered users who have made a number of unreverted edits to other articles to update it ? This article is about an important world event, sacred to French people, and we shouldn't allow it to be ruined by idiots.Rcbutcher (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC).

I second this observation. There are quite a few poorly read people who intrude into this site with inaccurate or slanted comments and modify the text at will in questionable English. This is particularly obvious in the beginning paragraphs. I beg Wikepedia to step in and stop their vandalism. All the dead soldiers of Verdun, both French and German, deserve the respect that is their due. Gerard Demaison ( 80 years old) son of a Verdun veteran ( 50eme BTS ,June-July 1916). This request dated :June 2007. I renew this request on 1/27/09 since there is still a sick individual at work who makes up grossly false numbers, here and there,to replace the correct ones etc.. Do not disturb the memory of Verdun and its soldiers... It may backfire.....

I suspect WW1 battles are a target because they appear on school syllabuses around the world. I have tried to get protection for this article and similarly afflicted ones, but generally failed. You go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and ask for semi-protection. However the admins who patrol that page set a very high threshold before they do anything. The fact that, say, the last the last 14 edits on a page were either vandalism or reverting vandalism will usually get the response:

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.

I suggest that, if you don't get any results from trying the above, you ask a friendly admin directly. However, even then, you may do well to get a 6-month block. Some fellow editors and I got Alcoholism permanently semi-protected but that's unusual. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Bois des Caures

I added that « bois des Caures » is in the village of Flabas (now: Moirey-Flabas-Crépion) - actually 1.5 km south of the center of the village. Perhaps a short article about the Battle of Bois des Caures corresponding to the one in fr.Wikipédia here or an expansion of these events for this article should be considered. Charvex (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

End date

We have two slightly different end dates in the article: 15 December 1916 in the first line and 18 December 1916 in the info box. Which is correct? Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The edits of User:71.84.8.103

I have not reverted them because they look like they're trying to help the article, but I feel someone with access to relevant references should check.

To User:71.84.8.103, please add edit summaries. Mark Hurd (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Alain Denizot

The following is used twice, in the lede, as a reference, which seems inappropriate.

"Verdun 14-18"; Alain Denizot Ph.D. thesis, Paris, 1996

Not only is not formatted correctly for a reference, but the notability of the source is far from clear. This should be removed, or further information provided to show it is a notable and reliable source. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox photo

I moved down the explicative map and replaced it with a French trench photo, which I feel more adequate.

Ghislain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guigui169 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Outcome

Just wanted to mention that the outcome of the battle differs according to which version of Wikipedia you read (ie German, Spanish, French etc). The Germans think it was a draw while the French think they won. Surprising? Who's right?

The French. At the end, they held the battlefield. The Germans may have been willing to concede this, but the exchange ratio wasn't nearly what Falkenhayn had hoped for. He was dismissed afterwards. I'm having trouble even imagining what the German POV is. Maybe they killed a few more Frenchmen? French army goes whack a year later? French stay on the battlefield, don't go home to make kids, and 24 years later there is no one to defend the Ardennes? Haber 01:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually you can add to it the Battle of Somme, the Second Battle of the Aisne (Le Chemin des Dames trauma: French troops sent waves after waves as fodder to get 1 meter of hill that will be lost the day after, this was probaly the biggest strategical disaster for the french army and it revealed the absurdity of war and the inhumanity of the officers- might be some BBC doc outhere check in and you'll get what i mean!), the First Battle of the Marne and the Second Battle of the Marne and yes sadly you have "no one to defend the Ardennes". Shame On You 16:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

German Wikipedia states a draw only in the infobox. The section result states that the most common view is a failure for the german army.

The site http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/verdun.htm, reports the battle as a draw, because "no tactical or strategic advantage was gained by either side."

Verdun was not a clear disaster for either the French or the Germans, only a disaster in terms of casualties. The Germans failed to take the town which was the objective. Therefore I think it is safe to say that the battle was a French victory, although both sides wasted hundreds of thousands of lives for no gain of any significance.Knerlo 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knerlo (talk • contribs)

Tactically inconclusive. But the Germans attacked, and failed to meet their objective, which was to force the French to defend the place until they were bled white, and forced to seek peace. The French held Verdun, and their army survived the onslaught. In that narrow, but signficant, sense, the battle was indeed a success for the French. Jsc1973 (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

While, [like virtual all Great War Battles,] any judgment of victory must surely be Pyrrhic, the fact is that after Verdun the French army ceased to exist as a fighting force and was unable to mount anything other than minor and limited local actions. When Nivelle ignored this reality and tried to mount offensive operations in April 1917, he precipitated a series of mutinies of such a severity that several French divisions actually marched on Paris. (Haigs war diary, Blake page 265) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.174.49 (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You're getting the cart ahead of the horse there. The French army mutinied in 1917 only after Nivelle had ordered several consecutive days of foolish attacks which broke the strength of the army. Had the French Army been under the command of a competent officer, like say, Foch or Petain, rather than a butcher, it was capable of offensive operations at the time of the Nivelle Offensive. Verdun hurt the French Army, but it didn't break it. Jsc1973 (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"the French army ceased to exist as a fighting force and was unable to mount anything other than minor and limited local actions." If the French Army ceased to exist as a fighting force, that's truly surprising that it continued to fight until november 1918. "series of mutinies of such a severity that several French divisions actually marched on Paris" No French divisions marched on Paris, they only refused to follow their officers orders like returning to the trenches you should read the wiki article related. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Army_Mutinies_(1917) 90.9.153.58 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Victory?

"The Battle of Verdun ended in a French victory since the German High Command failed to achieve its two strategic objectives". This seems an odd statement. If you read the article on the Battle of the Somme, the outcome is described as "indecisive", yet the British clearly failed to meet their objectives. At Verdun, the French lost more men than did the Germans. The psychological effect on both sides was equally catastrophic - the French later mutinied, while for the Germans, it was a major blow. To describe this battle as a victory for the French is to put it in a very odd historical perspective. Theeurocrat (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an odd statement because in fact it leaves out the French point of view of this battle. We can summarize it as the French wanted to keep it and stop the German there. At the end they did, so it looks like to be a success. Looking by the German POV, it's a failure because, the offensive was stopped and finally the German suffered similar casulaties than the French. COncerning the battle of the Somme, well I think it was an allied defeat, pure and simple. They wanted to break out the German lines and they did not. gmu (talk) ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.30.79 (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If that is true about the Battle of the Somme infobox, then that is bias. The Somme was a German victory for the same reason that Verdun is a French one. The British attacked the German line looking for a breakthrough and were utterly slaughtered. The only thing they accomplished was getting the Germans to let up some on Verdun and the French. Jsc1973 (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You can't limit what happened at the Battle of the Somme to the first day only. It lasted five months, and in the end the allies did hold their opponent's positions, with the Germans having pulled back to the strategically more viable Hindenburg Line. While the German Army suffered marginally less casualties than the Entente, those were nevertheless quite heavy (unlike the popular image of a one-sided slaughter). Compare this to the Battle of Verdun where the French reoccupied most of the lost ground before the end. That being said what matters is the consensus between historians on how each side completed their objectives. Don Durandal (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the measured responses. I am not a historian, so don't know the accepted definition of victory, or stalemate. Nor do I think that it is a question of bias. But I have read a lot about WWI, and it seems to me that it is a story of grinding attrition that over three years at least killed millions for a few kilometres of land. Against such a background, how can one talk of victory in a battle, simply because the opponent did not achieve his aims? If the USSR had waged war against the UK in the 1950s with the aim of taking control of the country's industrial capability, and had been repelled, but with several British cities a radioactive ruin, would this have been categorised as a British victory? I'm no pacifist either, but something doesn't seem right in the way that Wiki classifies the outcome of battles. Theeurocrat (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We use reliable sources. Do you know of any to bolster your viewpoint?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Who are "we"? Sounds pretentious, perhaps royal, and exclusive to the point of being fascist. Looking at dictionary sources, including Wikipedia, victory involves success. Another analogy: if two boxers have been in the ring for several rounds, one hits another with the intention of knocking him out, and fails, does this mean that the boxer receiving the punch and staying upright has won a victory? Clearly not. Success cannot be a simply a refection of the failure of one's opponent. So I go back to my original point - how can one characterise Verdun as a French victory in the context of a war which was essentially a stalemate for much of its course, and against the background of massive losses? Theeurocrat (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Verdun can be characterised as a French victory, not only on the battlefield -costly but effective defensive victory- and it was one of the first time in this war that the allied side did not retreated in a German offensive. But that's also in the centered national mind a morale victory and for somebody who read several French history books, that's a really symbolic battle and so success for them, as were Valmy during French Revolutionary Wars, Rocroi during the Thirty Years' War or Orléans during the Hundred Years' War.

"if two boxers have been in the ring for several rounds, one hits another with the intention of knocking him out, and fails, does this mean that the boxer receiving the punch and staying upright has won a victory? Clearly not. Success cannot be a simply a refection of the failure of one's opponent." During centuries, historians considered as winner of a tight battle the last to stand on the battlefield. 86.197.143.233 (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the response, and from the point of view of one side in the context of an individual battle, I would agree with you. For the French, Verdun showed their ability to stand up against the worst that the Germans could throw at them. So one can argue that it was a victory in terms of turning French morale (maybe, but look at the mutinies that followed). But in the context of the continued stalemate that characterised WWI, and against the background of what Wiki concludes for the Somme, can it really be considered a victory in the objective sense? That is my problem. And "WE use reliable sources" doesn't seem to solve it. I would say: outcome stalemate. Theeurocrat (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a published source for what "you say:outcome stalemate"? Instead of practicing an inability to read a link given by Berean Hunter, how about posting published sources that support your opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Theeurocrat, I think you should carefully read the wiki article on the French army mutinies and maybe too some books to understand that there were not against the fact to fight but more against the inability of the French High Command to prepare something else that useless and wasteful offensives. 92.150.206.252 (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

92.150.206.252 I agree with you regarding the mutinies. The poilus' main motive was that they were disillusioned by the inability of their commanders to design a winning strategy. My bracketed point was just to emphasise that Verdun did not entirely restore French morale. I was therefore not sniping against the French. I am sickened by the frequent insinuations on the Internet, mostly from Americans, that the French are inherently unable or unwilling to fight. French losses in WWI dwarf those of the US in any war, especially in terms of % of population. I am a betting man, and would bet 100/1 that the US army would not fight on in Iraq without mutiny after taking over 5 million casualties. My point here is not about bias, but rather consistency.

Kansas Bear, my point about Berean Hunter was that he was being extremely impolite and superior in tone. Otherwise I wouldn't have replied to him, because he added little to the debate.

As to sources, I hope that you do not object to this. "Victory (from Latin victoria) is a term, originally in applied to warfare, given to success...." (Wiki of course, but the definition in my OED is not so different). So success is required. My point (and I make it politely), is that one cannot always imply success from one's opponent's failure. It is far more complex than that. If you want a modern day US view on things, I suggest that you read the Theory of Victory by J Boone Bartholomees. "....That is, the fact that one side won big does not necessarily mean its opponent lost big. It may not even mean that the other side lost at all."

It is all over the net, but in pdf here: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/Articles/08summer/Bartholo.pdf

If you are up to the harder stuff, try von Clausewitz. But please don't complain to me if, after a couple of weeks, you find yourself enlightened but still unable to conclude whether or not Verdun was a victory or a defeat and for whom ;-)

I still argue for "stalemate". Theeurocrat (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any "sources" ;;))

Since you have posted no source to support your opinion, I consider this matter closed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Theeurocrat, the policies about editing Wikipedia are clear about no original research. Unless you publish a book about the Battle of Verdun, what you just wrote doesn’t matter. You need to look for reliable sources which clearly state “the Battle of Verdun was a stalemate and not a French victory”. You are not allowed to edit the page according to what your conclusions are.

Now if you want sources that state the battle was a French victory, just check the page; sources are listed there.

What Berean Hunter meant as "we" is all of us wikipedia editors, including you. Please follow the policies. Also it's not a forum Don Durandal (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Don Durandal, I have never amended the text of the article. I have refrained from doing so because although I read a lot of history books, and attend any lecture that I can on military matters, I am not a historian. However, you have obviously not read the way that the text has evolved since I made my comment on 7 October. If you wish to revert it, it is of course open to you to do so, providing that you respect other contributors and Wiki policies. My problem was with the text was with the link implied by the "since" in the following sentence: "The Battle of Verdun ended in a French victory since the German High Command failed to achieve its two strategic objectives". However, the text currently reads "the Battle of Verdun ended as a clear French tactical victory but it can also be viewed as a costly stalemate in terms of its strategic results. The German High Command failed to achieve its two objectives......" The delinking between the achievement of aims and the classification as a victory or stalemate is pretty much in line with my feeling, although I would like to see the box amended to reflect this, in line with current Wiki practice. So it would read something like "French tactical victory, strategic stalemate".

Your suggestion that "unless you publish a book about the Battle of Verdun, what you just wrote doesn’t matter" is obviously a completely false representation of Wiki policies, and I am sure that I am not alone in discouraging users from making comments of this type that may be misleading to newbies. I quite clearly referenced a relevant article, directly on the point that I was making. The article was written by Dr. J. Boone Bartholomees, who is Professor of Military History in the Department of National Security and Strategy at the U.S. Army War College. If you ever have a chance to attend one of his lectures, I can recommend it - he makes heavy material seem like light debate.

Finally, I can see nothing on here that goes beyond what the function of a talk page. Indeed, even the impoliteness and egocentricism that characterise certain users' contributions "I consider this matter closed" is nothing uncommon. If you feel otherwise, please feel free to try to have me blocked. 82.71.12.233 (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No idea why my sig doesn't work on this machine. The text above was of course mine. Theeurocrat (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, while ignoring what other editors are saying. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Kansas bear/ Don durandel, please stop to bully/mob eurocrat. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and eurocrat has as much of a right to contribute as you do. Please also carefully read eurocrat’s contributions as well as the pages you indicate in Wikipedia. “A talk page (also known as a discussion page) is a page which editors can use to discuss improvements to an article or other Wikipedia page.” If a little pedant, Eurocrat is, therefore, using this page for its correct purpose. Also, the text has been modified to mostly reflect his points, and the points of contributors to the “Outcome” question, while you ignore this and keep repeating an opposing opinion without support evidence: “editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an unsupportable allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input.”

I introduce myself as a French citizen whose family lost three of its members in the “meat-grinder”. More pertinantly, I have a maîtrise in history, my speciality subject being the First World War. My mother tongue is French, so I am able to read the French litterature on the subject. I used to work freqently on French-related texts in the English Wikipedia, but was disillusioned by the agressivity of many so-called contributors.

Eurocrat’s first point is perfectly correct, and so evident that there should be no need for citation (even eurocrat provided one). In simple terms, for non-specialists, in the case that one side fails to achieve its objectives, this is not necessarily a victory for the other party. The word “since” in the October text therefore has no place in logic, and contributors have therefore modified it.

The second point is more complicated. Here we must distinguish between the tactical victory and the strategic one. Most experts agree that Pétain and Nivelle won a tactical victory – by use of artillery and logistics they prevented the Germans from achieving their objectives. But eurocrat is correct that we cannot deduce from this a strategic victory. The outcome in terms of the War was to continue the stalemate – many died on both sides without great gain of territory. There is no total consensus on this point – some authors argue that the Verdun battle was the beginning of a turning-point, while others say that it had a devastating effect on the morale of the French.

Overall, in my opinion, the text is now representative of the consensus, but the infobox could be made more precise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.185.196.15 (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There has been no bullying of eurocrat. If anyone has breached civility and good faith, it would be when Eurocrat decided to respond to my rather routine request for sources by making the leap to calling my remark fascist. That is poor judgment.

Wikipedia uses published sources. We don't try to hash things out differently than what has been printed by reliable sources. Experienced Wikipedians are used to this. If his point exists within sources then he brings it to this talk page and presents it. If his point doesn't exist within sources then the conversation is over. This isn't the place to attempt to reason anything differently. We don't deal with original research, synthesis, or fringe theories. Since Eurocrat's first edit was in 2006, we expect him to learn our policies and guidelines by now. If he finds a single source that states his case then we view that in light of other sources so we don't give undue weight to a minor view. If he finds 5+ sources then he improves his case for balancing the viewpoint. That's how it works here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Stalemate? Tactical victory for the French? In the mind of the French, it must be a "victory-victory", as there is not a town in France that does not have its avenue de Verdun, rue de Verdun, cours de Verdun, or place de Verdun,[1][2] and France does not usually name streets or monuments after a defeat (exception: Alésia). After all, Gare d'Austerlitz is in Paris, while Waterloo Station & Trafalgar Square are in London.

But how about the Germans? What a surprise to see Verdunstraße[3] in so many important cities in Germany...

To 80.185.196.15: You should not have left en:wiki because you were "disillusioned by the aggressivity of many so-called contributors", you should have stayed to fight the battle, and probably would have made many friends in the process.

--Frania W. (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Odd that even German wikipedia[4] calls it "Französischer taktischer Sieg", along with two references.
So I will ask again what sources does 80.185.196.15 or Theeurocrat have to support "stalemate"?
All I see is incivility and diversion directed to Berean Hunter's statement that wikipedia requires published sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

IF, this is the source, "p.310, Robert A. Doughty, Pyrrhic victory: French strategy and operations in the Great War (Harvard University Press, 2005)", I would like a quote verifying "stalemate". --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Feria. That is a very funny observation on my country. Every town has a Winston Churchill Bridge, a USSR avenue and an Austerlitz station! I also like your suggestion. On this occasion, I intend to stay and “fight the battle”, because I am angry at the way that another is treated, rather than frustrated at continued obstacles to my own work.

Berean Hunter, Kansas Bear, you seem to be continuing along the same way. I know that there are cultural differences, and that Americans are reputed direct, but Berean Hunter, please observe again your initial post to eurocrat. I would certainly not feel part of the “we” that you refer to. Rather, I would feel excluded. Kansas Bear, “Since you have posted no source to support your opinion, I consider this matter closed” and again “an inability to read a link”. This is like a slap in the face. My English is not perfect, but if somebody addressed me in these terms in French, I would feel very angry. The first remark is also incorrect, since eurocrat did post a source, even if noone read it. Other posts from you two US, and so English mother tongue “contributors” are even worse: “the conversation is over” “That's how it works here.” Please, this is not the Sopranos. This is a Wikipedia talk page.

I also don’t know why you have selected eurocrat for this treatment. If you look up the talk page, you will see many arguments that are unsupported by any citation. For example, in the section “Possible changes/additions” there is not one. Moreover, eurocrat has only worked in the talk page. He has never put forward original research. Yet others edit the article, and you do not respond. I only intervened on this page when I had become very angry by the treatment that eurocrat received. I also looked at eurocrat edits. They are all conservative, some a little pedant, but all of them contribute. He has never vandalised, and on the contrary has even removed vandalism. Why do you select him for special treatment? He seems an easy target. Is it because he speaks in a very British/formal/polite way? Maybe because he admits that he is “not a historian”?

Finally, your demands of eurocrat are almost absurd. I agree that citations are important, but please observe first of all that the whole article on one of the most important battle in human history has only ten notes, one of which I added today ( it took me over an hour to find the reference). Many statements have no citation at all. Against this background, please look at what you, Berean Hunter, and don durandel are demanding of eurocrat. “If he finds 5+ sources then he improves his case for balancing the viewpoint.” So, Berean hunter, are you going to delete the citation that I added today because I gave only one? Don durandel: “Unless you publish a book about the Battle of Verdun, what you just wrote doesn’t matter.” This is really the most exaggerated statement. Berean hunter, don durandel, kansas bear – have any of you written books on Verdun? Even my professors at University many years ago had never done such a thing.

Kansas bear, I have no idea what point you make with “Französischer taktischer Sieg”. You are American, and so I forgive you any misinterpretation. I, on the other hand, can read German, and speak a dialect of it almost fluently “lothrénger Deitsch” (lorraine german), because it is the local tongue where I grew up. The phrase that you cite simply means “French tactical victory”. I do not understand how you could interpret it in another way. This is fully in line with the current text of the article.

Most bullies do not realise that they are doing it. Often it is not what they say or do, but how they say or do. It is very easy to sit at a PC and denigrate someone on the other side of the world. It is also usual that when one defends the victim of bullies, one also becomes a target. Please, more cool, more zen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.185.196.15 (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

My statement that German wikipedia says, "Französischer taktischer Sieg" meant even on German wikipedia it is called a French victory, not a stalemate. Clear enough. And spare me your veiled attempt at an insult. I read German just fine. Whereas I have asked for and have not received a quote from your "reference" to support "stalemate". --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• "I intend to stay and 'fight the battle', because I am angry at the way that another is treated,..."

Thank you for illustrating that you aren't doing this in good faith. We don't treat Wikipedia as a battleground and if you do then you can be blocked. With your intentions stated, we can now discount you from any consensus that may be formed.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Kansas bear, I did not mean an insult to Americans by stating that I forgave any misinterpretation of the German. It is just that there are very few fluent German speakers in the US. An illustration is that on your own user page, you rate yourself as having “DE-1, grundlegende Deutschkenntnisse” – basic knowledge of German. If you “read German just fine”, including historical terminology, I suggest that you are too modest. I hope that this compliment makes up for any injury that I might have caused to yor feelings.

This does not, however, give any advantage to your case, since I have never argued that France did not win a tactical victory at Verdun. Were I to do this, I have the suspicion that I would never again work as a history teacher in France, and would be hung in the nerest Austerlitz square (;-) I try to make Frania smile). Instead, what you have advanced is a straw man argument (Strohmann-Argument auf Deutsch) – in other words, you have contested an argument that I have never made.

If you read my posts, you will see that what I am proposing is that France did not achieve a strategic victory at Verdun, but that instead that the strategic result was a continued stalemate. This reflects the current text of the article. “A strategic victory is a victory that brings long-term advantage to the victor, and disturbs the enemy's ability to wage a war.” (Wiki – no source, but never mind, I will not delete it for this reason ;-)). Unless you are a big fanatic of “popular” history magazines, books in the style of “100 great battles” or indeed Wiki talk boxes, you will rarely see this term spelled out. Instead, what you will observe are phrases like “achieved a strategic breakthrough” (Robert Gates on Afghanistan), “may also be perceived as a costly stalemate in terms of strategic results” (Wiki article on Verdun), or in the case of my Robert A. Doughty citation “whatever the casualties, France’s defense at Verdun, and allied offensives on the Somme and at Verdun had not altered the strategic equation”. To a historian, these phrases mean that the strategic result is either a victory or, for Verdun, a stalemate.

Berean Hunter, if you read the posts of others you would observe that it was Frania, not I, who first used the term “fight the battle”. Both of us used it in the term of the need to fight against bullying on Wikipedia. I certainly do not see our debate on the outcome of Verdun as a battle. That would be ridiculous. The fact that I have accused you of bullying eurocrat may make you angry, but it does not entitle you to disregard my views as a specialist in the field of the War. I also doubt that the Wikipedia community will “discount me from the consensus” on this ground or indeed block me.

Thank you in advance for being courteous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.185.196.15 (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As noted by our dear Lorrainer, user 80.185.196.15, I was the first one to use "fight the battle" in this discussion, and it was not meant to be the battle of Verdun, but in answer to what he had written: "I used to work freqently on French-related texts in the English Wikipedia, but was disillusioned by the agressivity of many so-called contributors."

Although French, I spend more time on English wiki than on the French one, for the simple reason that I believe it is where I am more useful, barging in with a pocketful of accents aigus, circonflexes & cédilles. At times, I also do encounter some anti-French aggressivity, but that's when I stay and "fight the battle" & find myself saved by non-French, usually Americans, who come to my rescue.

Also, Monsieur 80.185.196.15, please note that English Wikipedia is not peopled only with Americans who are not "fluent German speakers" - I doubt that many British, Canadians, Australians, or French for that matter, are "fluent German speakers". Your being from Lorraine puts you at an advantage.

Cordialement ! "Frania de Lutèce", --Frania W. (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Frania. I can only wish that Verdun had been fought on a Wiki talk page. But your English is so perfect that I am surprised that anyone could identify you as a Frenchie unless you stuck your head out of the trench and announced it! And you are right - fluent German is not only uncommon among Americans - it is also not so widespread among many peoples of the world. Unfortunately (because it is not the ugly language it is sometimes portrayed), it is now dying in Lorraine and Alsace. For my part, I was never attacked for being French. Rather, I became disillusioned because of personal abuse and bullying of the "this is the way it is" variety(meaning this is the way I see it, so shut up), and by users requiring a higher standard of proof for my edits than they applied to their own. This makes Wikipedia editing very tiring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.185.196.15 (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The guidance at the top of the talk page explains that "Battle of Verdun is a featured article on the German Wikipedia. You may be able to improve the article on this project by drawing content, media or references from that article". I have accordingly modified the infobox so that the outcome is not a "French victory" but rather a "French tactical victory" (Französischer taktischer Sieg). For any questions, I would be pleased to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.185.236.92 (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"Heavies"

I think that "heavies" is jargon, and I am not sure how, but please can those who know more about the subject correct this for those of us who do not. Theeurocrat (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Eurocrat: please read this on heavy artillery[5]

--Frania W. (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ouah, Frania! That is really a useful tool. Looking at the examples, I think that eurocrat is right. "heavies" is jargon, and tends to be used after the term "heavy artillery" or "heavy guns" has already been used in the same paragraph, to aid comprehension.

Incidentally, the "poilus" of the Battle of Verdun page have a new recruit. My young nephew asked me "who was 'the German'? It says ' The German's next tactical move, on the right bank of the Meuse river, was...' ". According to him, the English was barely "passable" in places. So, briefly, I let him loose on the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.185.220.228 (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering the importance of heavy artillery in the bloody battle of Verdun, I don't see why English-correct[6] military jargon such as "heavies" should/could not be used. We cannot constantly expunge words that some readers do not understand, unless Wikipedia articles are written for kindergarteners.

--Frania W. (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"One" Hundred/ Daily order

Hi Frania, this is Phil (the nephew). I agree with you on the drum-fire. See [[7]]. But on your "one hundred edit", I suggest you read this: [[8]]. Non-native speakers instinctively prefer "one", whereas anglophones tend to go for "a". Neither is grammatically incorrect, as you seem to feel. It is just a matter of style. To my ears (I grew up with English), and in the context, "one" just sounds funny. On the other hand, I would use it if I were emphasising the exact quantity that I wanted (not the case here), for instance in the sentence: "I want to buy one hundred eggs". But please feel free to revert again if you wish.

I have a question on another point. "Daily order" is meaningless in EN. Yet I understand that "ordre du jour" has a very precise meaning in FR. My dictionary translates it as "agenda" or "order of business", neither of which sounds right here. Could we not keep it as "ordre du jour" in the EN article, as in Resolution of the Dreyfus Affair? What do you think?

"Order of the day" is an expression that is also used in English and linguistically correct (although not strictly in the same sense as that used in French military jargon). I'd sugest using that one as it's close enough, and prevents having to use foreign words not everyone might be able to understand. Don Durandal (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It does not seem to be used in everyday EN as frequently as in FR, but it IS used in the armed forces of both the UK and the USA. I have found two examples - one from General Eisenhower [[9]], and one from Field Marshal Haig[[10]]. You learn something new every day! 80.185.234.46 (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

1. - on the use of "a hundred" vs "one hundred": this discussion taking place on en:wiki between two French persons hits me as extremely funny, and I am going to let the real McCoys, i.e. the Brits & Yanks, settle it.
2. - "daily order" should be "order of the day", and favored over French "ordre du jour".

P.S. To Phil the nephew: in your use of *eggs* to demonstrate your point, don't you think that, in the context of the story, something with "one hundred *shells*" would have been more appropriate?

Happy New Year & Bonne Année !

--Frania W. (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now I am deeply insulted ;-). Whoever said that I was French? I'm just a Brit, held hostage by my relatives over the New Year, and force-fed this appalling French food ;-). But Bonne Année anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.185.224.107 (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The Yank search engine Google, on the Brit-invented Web, set up on the Yank Internet gives me this:

"heard one hundred miles away" (some from this Article) douze points

"heard a hundred miles away" 116 points —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.185.224.107 (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Article "one hundred" of the Code Napoléon[11]: "Tout enfant né de parents Brits, mais ayant un oncle français, par surcroît de Lorraine, est doublement français."

P.S. Phil the nephew & your uncle: you should learn to sign your posts & give SineBot a break...

--Frania W. (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that all the dead of Verdun have been completely forgotten in all the back and forth exchanges above...Please do remember them and honor their memory .... their sufferings were, by far, the worst to have happened during WW-1...Signed: Gerard Demaison. (83 years old)and son of a Verdun veteran who took me there for the first time at age 9 in 1936. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.158.145 (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Drum fire

A barrage created by a unit of guns firing in succession, not all at once.[[12]]Theeurocrat (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Battle of Verdun France 1914 Sept.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Battle of Verdun France 1914 Sept.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: section 7 into section 6

Hi,

my suggestion is that section 7 should be scrapped.

Three "notable" deaths out of 300,000 seems a little shallow here - perhaps it could be integrated into section 6?

Best,

P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.103.218.0 (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible changes/additions

A few notable things:

-Falkenhayn was an overly cautious commander, and devoted to secrecy to a tragic degree. As a result, the attacking marshals and generals (notably Crown Prince Wilhelm) were unaware of the "bleeding white" policy, and made plans not for an attrition battle but rather for the taking of Verdun. Falkenhayn thus held onto much needed reserves, confounding the German commanders on several occasions when such reserves would have undoubtedly resulted in huge successes.

-Several times the Germans come extremely close to breakthroughs, notably in the opening days when the French defenders were in utter chaos, as well in the successive taking of Fort Douaumont.

-Although problebly more suitable in the Fort Vaux article, the desperate defense of this fort by the French should be recounted. The Germans had successfully taken the superstructer, but an odd situation developed where the germans had control of the top, and the defenders had managed to hold up under the fort for several days without water; and indeed so stiff was the defense that all that eventually drove them out was the unbearable thirst. The defenders were also reduced to using carrier pigeons for communication, the last of which, mortally afflicted by a German gas attack, barely managed to reach its destination before falling dead. The poor creature was given military honors, the only of its species to have ever done so.

-While the Germans indeed needed to withdraw troops/artillery to the Somme battlefield, as the article states, so too did the French. The desperate defenders of Verdun probably were worse off in this situation. Also, because of Verdun the some 40 divisions of French Haig requested for the Somme offensive was scaled back to just under 20.

There's more, but I'm not entirely sure of the detail or scope this article is meant to convey, and will leave it up to the community to discuss.

I don't know who wrote this, but I'd really be interested in working with anyone else to improve this article beyond C-class. I really think Verdun deserves to have an excellent article. Timeweaver (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I was also disappointed in this article, but I'm up to my neck in Vietnam stuff right now and don't have time to address the issues. Be happy to help when and where I can, though. Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Which treaty gave Verdun to France?

The text is Peace of Munster but the link is to Peace of Westphalia. The former article doesn't mention Verdun, the latter mentions that Verdun was given to France. patsw (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Verdun was part of the Three Bishoprics that were transfered to France in 1648 by the treaty of Westphalia.DITWIN GRIM (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

So everyone is aware...

Over the next few weeks I'm going to be going through every line of this article, trying to add citations and fix errors/work on the POV. As you can tell I've started already. I'd appreciate any input/assistance and welcome other viewpoints! Timeweaver (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Just curious from one of your edit summaries....would you consider Horne's book on Verdun a solid source? I recall that he quotes the Falkenhayen memo. But that could be a rehash of the memoirs.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That is very true. Hmm, I have to think on this a bit more, try to find a few more substantial sources, I think. Quite a few of the ones I've found are in german or french, so it's taking a bit of time. Do you think the article's looking a tad better? :) Timeweaver (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

Quite. I've been bashing through the Vietnam stuff, since some of it is in really bad shape. But it was sad to see the Verdun article in such a state. You've been doing good work with it. And since Horne documents pretty well, you'd be able to tell if he was rehashing memoirs or not. Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Quick Milhist B class review

As per the request posted at WP:MHA, I've taken a quick look at the article. I'm by no means an expert on the topic, but I have the following suggestions for improvement towards B class:

• referencing: at a bare minimum for a B-class rating within the Milhist project, each paragraph should end in an inline citation. If multiple sources have been used in constructing a paragraph, they should be placed where appropriate throughout;
• lead: as the article is quite large, the lead should probably be expanded (it could be up to four paragraphs if appropriate);
• (suggestion only) structure: I'm a little unclear on when the main fighting occurred. The infobox and lead say it ended in December 1916, but in the body of the article there is a section discussing 1917. I think that this stems from the article's current structure, which employs level two headings for Historical background, Verdun Sector in 1914, German strategy, Prelude, June-July and the Outcomes, etc. with various level three headings under those. You might consider an approach that uses level two headings of: Background, Prelude, Battle and Aftermath, and inside each of those headings use level three headings for different periods, which would be dealt with chronologically if appropriate. WP:MILMOS/C has some guidance, but this is only a suggestion, of course, and there is no requirement to change for a B-class rating.
• Style: the article could do with some MOS tweaking, for instance in regards to date format, and the citation style seems a little inconsistent (this is not a bar to B class, but just a general comment);

Anyway, I hope this helps. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this great advice! I'll keep working on it. I really appreciate the time you took to leave this comment. :) Timeweaver (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries, good luck with the article. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Casualties

Obviously, someone has confused casualties with deaths. This page offer a more comprehensive balance: http://www.wereldoorlog1418.nl/battleverdun/slachtoffers.htm

--Bentaguayre (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Some more with bibilography

• P.148 http://books.google.es/books?id=vP_nqoIQLSMC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=377,231+french&source=bl&ots=inGV4HQFkT&sig=EzbpJeWxb2uY1BxsACME2u-C3ew&hl=es&sa=X&ei=VJZbUOrIEsHJ0AWm1YC4CA&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=377%2C231%20french&f=false

• 377,231 casualties on the French side, among which 162,308 killed or missing
• 337,000 casualties on the German side, among which 100,000 killed or missing

--Bentaguayre (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've changed some numbers in the article but in order to be sincere, I have doubts. From this P.1886 http://books.google.es/books?id=TogXVHTlxG4C&pg=PA1886&lpg=PA1886&dq=verdun+casualties&source=bl&ots=OoEx2moc-3&sig=sINOmGi7M5Wb28Zf-p82iXC-LjI&hl=es&sa=X&ei=qrBbULaHO8XV0QXfpIHwAg&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=verdun%20casualties&f=false we can conclude that casualties I've put were those counted in that time. These numbers might suffered of underestimation.

More modern stimations are like this: P.280 http://books.google.es/books?id=UjRY3kti18UC&pg=PA280&lpg=PA280&dq=verdun+542,000&source=bl&ots=1xOmS4z1c-&sig=pSZ5dP_ciGDy9MN05Zi_mGaPMmc&hl=es&sa=X&ei=MrBbUL_sFOma0QXbw4CgBw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=verdun%20542%2C000&f=false

French casualties: 542,000 German casualties: 434,000

In order to agree with both stimations, I will put both on the article.

--Bentaguayre (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Layout

Tidied up.Keith-264 (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Tidied references and sfn'd the footnotes.Keith-264 (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Made start in adding material, citations and copy editing the text. I'm a little doubtful of the casualty figures though, have French Western Front losses been conflated with those at Verdun?Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Got most of the references done and added some material about falky's 1916 strategy. Did a list of casualties from various authors to try to establish a range and shifted various paragraphs to organise them thematically.Keith-264 (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Did some more references, copyediting and added a bit more material.Keith-264 (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Had a stab at revising the sub-headings to reflect the Arras, 3rd Ypres and Somme pages which seem to have stood the test of time. Expanded several passages but the dates and figures for casualties in the text and infobox are questionable due to the limitations of the sources I have available. A copy-edit by a fresh pair of eyes woud be a great help and information on new sources (in English) would be appreciated. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Did more tidying and took out the notable deaths as is seems elitist.Keith-264 (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"Notable deaths"

I had a suggestion that if there was a death which altered the course of events at Verdun, then that would be notable but the fact would belong in the text - Driant for example but what made the flyer and painter notable qua Verdun? Keith-264 (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

comments elsewhere, unless the discussion gets moved. It's been there for ages. It's always a great pity to see correct and useful information simply struck out. Your claim in the edit summary that "all deaths are notable" is patent nonsense.Paulturtle (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the empathy.Keith-264 (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Churchill

May have amended his text in a post 1927 edition (that's the one Doughty cited) but he is not the authority, only one among a large field of contenders. As for his tactical insights, the whole point of the German offensive at Verdun was to deny the French the choice of withdrawal unless they were willing to lose Verdun. FWIW I find Foley's account the most convincing.Keith-264 (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I never said he was "the" authority, and I'm perfectly well aware that he may have amended his text - there are very slight hints at this in the phrasing, which is why I mentioned that it was the second edition in the edit summary. What matters is that Churchill's work is rendered correctly, not just bad-mouthed, e.g. sneering at the "tactical insights" of a man who, whatever his other faults, did in fact command a frontline battalion reasonably competently by most accounts. At the moment, in your haste to assert "ownership", you have just managed to butcher the text to the point of incoherence and inaccuracy, so I was actually waiting for you to calm down and go away before fixing it again.

Falkenhayn's intentions at Verdun remain a matter of a certain amount of academic debate, but Churchill's point about tactics was that the French felt that they had to hold every last tiny scrap of ground, no matter how good or bad (rather like the Germans on the Somme, one supposes, although I didn't spot that point in his text). His metaphor about catching the cricket ball used to be very famous - I remember reading it many times when I was younger - though it's not a matter of life and death whether it's included.Paulturtle (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, the only thing I own are the sources I use. I left it for a while to avoid edit conflicts as I thought you hadn't finished; are you satisfied with the CE? The tactical penalty of conceding ground on the Meuse Heights made a German offensive on them make sense from an attritional point of view, because there was no room to retreat without uncovering Verdun. The French did retreat voluntarily, from the low ground on the east side of the salient to the heights early on. By resorting to an unyielding defence they kept the Germans on lower ground swept by artillery-fire from the west bank.Keith-264 (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

August 1917

X 16, pp 181–216, GOH 13, pp. 101–109 http://digi.landesbibliothek.at/viewer/image/AC03617667/129/LOG_0065/ Keith-264 (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

GA nom

Verdun: The Longest Battle of the Great War by Paul Jankowski is far less helpful than I'd hoped but there's an interesting analysis of casualties which deserves a paragraph or two, so I'd better get cracking.Keith-264 (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Added some details from Foley, Jankowski's tactical and casualty analysis. The text could do with a fresh pair of eyes though. Keith-264 (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Keith-264. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

recent edits

Should this page have a British English tag appended? It may avoid tedious mistaken edits and reversions due to misunderstandings. Keith-264 (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right; I have added it. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle Result

Given the heavy casualties and especially the way that the war is remembered and discussed, would it be appropriate to classify the result of Verdun as a pyrrhic victory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.176.186 (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

We should be NPOV which means describing what notable historians/writers conclude. The analysis section contains a summary.Keith-264 (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence?

"In May 1916 Joffre began a plan to issue each division two groups of 155mm guns and each corps four groups of long-range guns."

This appears to be incomplete.

I fear soKeith-264 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix.

"In a directive of the General Staff of 5 August 1915, the RFV was to be stripped of 54 artillery batteries and 128,000 rounds of ammunition."

I dont see RFV explained prior to this sentence. I assume it is the German artillery reserve, but the full name would be nice for the first mention (if I have not missed it) region fortified Verdun, although clarification would be nice a few sentences earlier when the region. Was first mentioned.2600:1015:B104:E26D:A1C7:BA98:D06B:B61A (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Try the leadKeith-264 (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

Sorry everyone, I forgot to put the on the article. Keith-264 (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh and please remember to duplicate the citation if moving passages of prose about so there are no un-cited passages.Keith-264 (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Moved Subsequent operations to the Aftermath section like the other articles. Keith-264 (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Did a quick ce due to recent edits but please note that the longest and one of the biggest battles in history is quite a detailed event, what would undoubtedly be fine detail for a one-day battle is quite general for an event of such magnitude.Keith-264 (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind being specific as to the reasons you reverted my changes, besides broad insults and accusations of ignorance in your history tags? The material I removed was not essential to an understanding of the broadest strokes of the battle, and things like removing any mention of the Sacred Way, removing an explanation as to who Petain was along with link etc are baffling in the context of at the same time arguing that ever so much detail is needed to understand Verdun at even the summary level (which, again, a lead is supposed to be). How exactly are the exact dates and name in German to one of the forerunner battle to this more important than identifying the major French commander at this battle, or the mythical quality of the Sacred Way? You say that my writing is poor, but there's so much redundancy and mindless minutiae in the lead as it stands that I can't understand your position, over and above the rudeness. Palindromedairy (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

To add to this, compare the fine lead on the Battle of the Somme to this mess. Times, reasons for it happening, significance: all concise. Palindromedairy (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I wrote them both ;O)). The significance of the Battle of Verdun has undergone much revision since the 1960s and has been placed in a historical context that makes sense of Falkenhayn's attempt to squeeze a quart out of a pint pot. Your edit summary referred to a "bunch of fine detail" which is a description of your opinion not the lead. I revised it in the light of your recent views but please note that the supply route to Verdun was mythologised by journalists after the war and is insignificant for the lead (more of your fine detail). The point about the detail that is in the lead is that it is why the Germans fought the battle. Gaining ground observation over Verdun was vital for the German plan to turn the east bank into a one-sided killing ground (although I can see your point about overlooking and ground observation appearing to mean the same thing). The French managing to frustrate the plan and the ramifications this led to gave the battle its peculiar character and was reflected in later battles. Petain was far less important than earlier accounts based on the Great Man theory would have it and the hyperbolic terms that the battle used to be described have subsided. Please also note that much of the writing on Verdun is in German and French sources. As for rudeness, you started it.

That said, at least you've bothered to read it and ask the right questions so I'd rather work with you to make the article better than trade insults. Having slept on your critique of the EF section in the Belgium article, I'm much more sympathetic to your objections about the detail of EF events. It's been a bit of a frustrating day trying to find a source that doesn't treat the fronts in isolation but I'll get to it (the time factor is the unifying theme). If you are minded to put in more effort on the Great War articles that I've been involved in, why not get in touch before making a big edit so we can discuss it first and avoid revert frenzy? Keith-264 (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

First, I absolutely did not start any sort of rudeness and I don't know what you're talking about. My edit summary here was "added a couple of specific points missing, deleted a bunch of overly fine detail not needed in a lead's broad summation", which I felt then and still do: no personal attacks were made, and I can't see how you can get any out of them, because I had absolutely no idea who wrote it. Your edit summary, meanwhile, was "you're banal and can't write". If you're talking about the Belgium thing, my last response to you there was "we're all busy so I'm happy to wait; thanks for doing this". Your attitude is baffling.

I'd like to reduce minutiae here. I didn't think my approach would be controversial, which is why I didn't consult, and I still don't see how any of my changes (apart from mistakenly identifying Petain as the utterer of "They shall not pass") was bad. We can assume, for instance, that the French would take losses without needing to continually reference "rifle and artillery fire". That the Germans were influenced by previous battles in the war is a given: that level of detail can be saved for the body, as no one could be truly hindered in understanding a summation of Verdun simply by not knowing about the Herbstschlacht, etc. Meanwhile, the battle summary doesn't bring up Fort Douaumont until the French are already trying to retake it, and never explains why its important: something my edits addressed. The need for reinforcement for the Somme is mentioned twice, in the same para no less. This is a lot of cruft that can stand to go so as to give the quick reader the best possible understanding of the biggest and most important facts. My general feeling is that leads in Wikipedia tend to get bogged down in way too many specifics, so my general approach is to reduce to the vaguest generalities possible that still allows us to capture the spirit of the thing.

Meanwhile, that the Sacred Way was "merely" mythologised by journalists is irrelevant: it's enough that it was mythologised. Otherwise it's like claiming that we won't bother talking about the timeless legend of Thermopylae because after all, the Greeks lost. War is not merely a collection of wins and losses: battles like Grunwald, Kosovo, Cannae etc can have greater meaning, regardless of the "facts". If that is so, as it most definitely is here, then it deserves to be mentioned.

I'll begin again here, but I'll be sure to make smaller piecemeal edits with an explanation for each so that if you object you can tackle specific points. Palindromedairy (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and I should add: the Somme lead is a thing of beauty. Nice work, and I'd like to see the same sort of results here. Palindromedairy (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, never too early to begin, I guess. It originally said:

"The French would suffer catastrophic losses from German artillery fire and the German infantry holding positions that were easy to defend, would suffer far fewer losses."

I changed it to say that:

"The French would suffer catastrophic losses while the Germans, holding defensible positions, would suffer far fewer."

• All positions are defensible so easy is a necessary qualifier.Keith-264 (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

My edit says the same thing with fewer words; I assumed the reader didn't need to specifically be beat over the head that it was rifles and artillery that would kill all the Frenchmen. It changes nothing about how the situation occurred, or what results were expected. My edit is still preceded by "The German strategy assumed that the French would attempt to hold on to the east bank of the Meuse and then commit the French strategic reserve to recapture it." But you seem to be under the impression that my edit somehow radically alters the meaning of the sentence so that the primary meaning is lost. Would you mind explaining how you've come to this conclusion? It's still Germans taking something and waiting for the French to come take it back, where they then presumably get slaughtered. Palindromedairy (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

[Added after an edit conflict]

Have you read the article? The battle was intended to smash the French army by provoking it into counter-attacks at a great disadvantage rather than to break through the French lines and win a battle of manoeuvre. It was a break with German military tradition and ideology of the decisive battle and a deliberate attempt to recreate the fortuitous conditions of the Autumn Battle in 1915. The point is that this was different so is isn't safe to assume that the reader, especially an anglophone monoglot will know about this or not need it in the lead when it is a significant part of the article. The battle was an early example of the logic of fire-power warfare and the German tendency in the C20th to try to overcome strategic inferiority with operational sophistication.

My general feeling is that leads in Wikipedia tend to get bogged down in way too many specifics, so my general approach is to reduce to the vaguest generalities possible that still allows us to capture the spirit of the thing.

I agree with this but the vagueness you feel sufficient misses the salient points about what the battle was, why it was and how it went. The Germans were trying to achieve a technical solution to dearth while facing opposition that could fight the war with plenty; the details matter.

Meanwhile, that the Sacred Way was "merely" mythologised by journalists is irrelevant: it's enough that it was mythologised. Otherwise it's like claiming that we won't bother talking about the timeless legend of Thermopylae because after all, the Greeks lost. War is not merely a collection of wins and losses: battles like Grunwald, Kosovo, Cannae etc can have greater meaning, regardless of the "facts". If that is so, as it most definitely is here, then it deserves to be mentioned.

Yes but not in the lead, it's a post-war cliche so should be in the commemoration section. The lead is the place for the butcher's bill.

I'll begin again here, but I'll be sure to make smaller piecemeal edits with an explanation for each so that if you object you can tackle specific points. Palindromedairy (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not copy the lead into the talk and we can go through it line by line?

Oh, and I should add: the Somme lead is a thing of beauty. Nice work, and I'd like to see the same sort of results here. Palindromedairy (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you; sadly, not everyone thought so and I don't edit the page any more.Keith-264 (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead

The Battle of Verdun ([Bataille de Verdun,] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) IPA: [bataj də vɛʁdœ̃], [Schlacht um Verdun,] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) IPA: [ʃlaxt ˀʊm ˈvɛɐdœŋ]), fought from 21 February to 18 December 1916, was one of the largest and longest battles of the First World War on the Western Front by the German and French armies. The battle took place on the hills north of Verdun-sur-Meuse in north-eastern France when the German 5th Army attacked the defences of the [Région Fortifiée de Verdun] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (RFV) and those of the Second Army on the right bank of the Meuse, intending to rapidly capture the [Côtes de Meuse] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (Meuse Heights), from which Verdun could be bombarded with observed artillery fire. The German plan was based on the experience of the Second Battle of Champagne in Autumn 1915, when after early success, the French offensive was defeated with many more French than German casualties.

Falkenhayn calculated that the French would try to hold on to the east bank of the Meuse and then commit the French strategic reserve to recapture it. The French would suffer catastrophic losses from an unprecedented number of German heavy guns and German infantry in positions that were easy to defend, would suffer far fewer losses. As the French strategic reserve was destroyed at Verdun, the British would be forced into a premature relief offensive north of the Somme and their inexperienced troops would easily be destroyed in turn. Either the Franco-British would try to negotiate an end to the war or the German army in the west would have sufficient manpower to resume a war of manoeuvre and expel the British from Europe. The Germans would obtain a decisive victory, dictate a victor's peace and then if necessary, finish off the Russians. [Was there a passage like this in the lead earlier?]

Poor weather delayed the beginning of the offensive at Verdun until 21 February and the French were able to dig more defensive lines and the arrival of French reinforcements before the opening attack, delayed the German advance, despite many French losses. By 6 March, 20+1⁄2 French divisions were in the RFV and a more extensive defence in depth had been established. Pétain ordered On ne passe pas (they will not pass) and that counter-attacks were to be conducted, despite exposing French infantry to fire from the German artillery. By 29 March, the French guns on the west bank had begun a constant bombardment of German positions on the east bank, which caused many German casualties.

In March, the German offensive was extended to the left (west) bank of the Meuse, to gain observation of the ground from which French artillery had been firing over the river, onto the Meuse Heights. The Germans were able to advance at first but French reinforcements contained the attacks short of their objectives. In early May, the Germans changed tactics and made local attacks and counter-attacks, which gave the French an opportunity to counter-attack Fort Douaumont. Part of the fort was occupied, until the Germans recaptured the fort and took numerous prisoners. The Germans changed tactics again, alternating their attacks on both banks of the Meuse and in June captured Fort Vaux. The Germans continued the offensive beyond Vaux, towards the last geographical objectives of the original plan, at Fleury-devant-Douaumont and Fort Souville. The Germans drove a salient into the French defences, captured Fleury and came within 4 km (2.5 mi) of the Verdun citadel.

In July, the German offensive was reduced to provide artillery and infantry reinforcements for the Somme front and during local operations, the village of Fleury changed hands sixteen times between 23 June and 17 August and a German attack on Fort Souville in early July failed. To supply reinforcements for the Somme front, the German offensive was reduced further and attempts were made to deceive the French into expecting more attacks at Verdun, to keep French troops away from the Somme. In August and December, French counter-offensives recaptured much of the ground lost on the east bank and recovered Fort Douaumont and Fort Vaux.

An estimate in 2000 found a total of 714,231 casualties, 377,231 French and 337,000 German, an average of 70,000 casualties a month; other recent estimates increase the number of casualties to 976,000, with 1,250,000 suffered at Verdun during the war. The Battle of Verdun lasted for 303 days and became the longest and one of the most costly battles in human history.

How dat?Keith-264 (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed this after my most recent article edits. Will work from here from now on. Thanks. Palindromedairy (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, when I saved, you had already edited. Apropos Douaumont, it was more important than the French expected but didn't turn out to be the keystone of anything, since the French defence survived its loss and the Germans didn't collapse when the French took it back; it's another example of obsolete hyperbole. I tried to find the words to point out that the Germans took 90% of the ground they captured on the east bank in the first six days but decided that that was too detailed. Keith-264 (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I suspect in general we have different ideas of what is "essential", which is going to lead to difficulties. I want short and sweet, because the reader can always check the body. My criteria is "if you can't possibly understand the full importance of a thing without this item, remove it. That having been said, the "full importance" is rather subjective. However, offhand I'm inclined to say that, for battles, that includes more than just the butcher's bill, if there is any more. Verdun is the most important battle of the war for the French aside from perhaps the Marne, and I'd like to capture some of that greater myth/legend aspect. However, I think that that note about the Germans took X amount in X days is an excellent thing for a lead, the kind of broad-strokes, cuts-through-the-minutiae greater perspective that really aids a reader in understanding the thing as a whole, and might not actually fit in the body because the body gets too detailed for such a sweeping statement. High-level understanding is the best here, I believe. Would you add that in?

Okay, one para at a time. First para:

The Battle of Verdun ([Bataille de Verdun,] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) IPA: [bataj də vɛʁdœ̃], [Schlacht um Verdun,] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) IPA: [ʃlaxt ˀʊm ˈvɛɐdœŋ]), fought from 21 February to 18 December 1916, was one of the largest and longest battles of the First World War on the Western Front by the German and French armies. The battle took place on the hills north of Verdun-sur-Meuse in north-eastern France when the German 5th Army attacked the defences of the [Région Fortifiée de Verdun] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (RFV) and those of the Second Army on the right bank of the Meuse, intending to rapidly capture the Meuse Heights, from which Verdun could be bombarded with observed artillery fire. The German strategy assumed that the French would attempt to hold on to the east bank of the Meuse and then commit the French strategic reserve to recapture it. The French would suffer catastrophic losses from German artillery fire and the German infantry holding positions that were easy to defend, would suffer far fewer losses.

1) Agree with all the translations of the battle name itself (pretty standard). Would like to shuffle most remaining translations off to the main body, as this is English wikipedia. In this case, that would be the "Côtes de Meuse" part. However, if the bit about the RFV is kept (see my next point), then the French translation for it should be as well, as the reader can't understand what RFV means without it.

• I'd prefer to keep region fortifiee and RFV since it introduces the abbreviation quickly.

2) I feel "the German 5th Army attacked the defences of the [Région Fortifiée de Verdun] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (RFV) and those of the Second Army garrisons" is far too specific for a lead. Surely it is enough to say Germans and French here, in a summary? The first sentence already gives a sense of scale, and the second the location, so the specifications as to such and such defensive department is unneeded, to me, for a lead's broad understanding. A reader will not fail to comprehend Verdun if he doesn't know which specific German army is involved; I can't see any justification for keeping that.

• I took out garrisons above but would keep the army titles and RFV as mentioned, German and French are too general. It's important to know that Verdun was a fortress zone.

3) The last two sentences seem too wordy for me, failing to sum up in a punchy fashion the German strategy, which is why I tried to cut it down; the infantry and artillery fire part is especially irksome, as it's so painfully obvious (I would rather specify in a WWI battle if infantry and artillery weren't used). It should probably have a link to attrition warfare there, which would help even more. Palindromedairy (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• It is the novelty of the concept that needs to be explicit, it wasn't to be a generic battle with guns and shells, they were to be used in a way deliberately designed to get the French to defeat themselves. The necessary preliminary was a short offensive to reach the ground from which the strategy would be implemented. The French stopped the Germans at great cost but over the year with more like 1:1 casualties, than the 22:1 that occurred at times during the Autumn Battle. You can't really get a succinct passage about strategy when it was to flow from novel tactics which aren't obvious but which are encrusted with legends.Keith-264 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Keith-264 (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

All right, things I believe we can agree on done for now. I'll aim a rewrite of the end next time, but I probably won't return to this until next week. Cheers. Palindromedairy (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the work, see you next week. Keith-264 (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, back again. I'd like to take the last part, combine it with the first sentence of the next para (which belongs in this initial origins para regardless) and reword it all together as follows. Original:

The German 5th Army attacked the defences of the Région Fortifiée de Verdun (RFV) and those of the Second Army on the right bank of the Meuse, intending to rapidly capture the Meuse Heights, from which Verdun could be bombarded with observed artillery fire. The German strategy assumed that the French would attempt to hold on to the east bank of the Meuse and then commit the French strategic reserve to recapture it. The French would suffer catastrophic losses from German artillery fire and the German infantry holding positions that were easy to defend, would suffer far fewer losses.

Reword:

The German 5th Army attacked the defences of the Région Fortifiée de Verdun (RFV) and those of the Second Army on the right bank of the Meuse. Inspired by the experience of the Second Battle of Champagne the year before, the Germans planned to rapidly capture the Meuse Heights, providing them with an excellent defensive position that would also allow them to bombard Verdun with observed artillery fire. The Germans hoped that the French would commit their strategic reserve to recapture the position and suffer catastrophic losses in battles of attrition, where the Germans had a tactical advantage.

This would be shorter, even before considering it allows the first sentence of the second para to go, but I think better brings out the nature of German intentions while keeping the references to Champagne and observed artillery fire you wanted. The Champagne thing in any form still seems pointless minutiae to me in the context of a lead, but compromise and all that. Palindromedairy (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I broadly agree but prefer not to deviate too far from the wikilink title, even at the loss of a little brevity, to be descriptive. How about this?

Are you familiar with Foley? His book is an excellent summary of the developments of firepower warfare, the logic of machines and that the Verdun plan was a culmination of the experience of the war since 1914 on both fronts (I left out reference to Gorlice-Tarnow in spring 1915, when Falkenhayn's concepts were vindicated). I quite agree about keeping the lead short and that this means general language but the differences between this offensive and the French/Russian/Italian breakthrough attempts in 1915 are what makes Verdun different; Falkenhayn tried to clever his way out of numerical inferiority.Keith-264 (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Tinkered againKeith-264 (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Haven't read Foley, but it's not that I disagree with the significance so much as I disagree with its need to be in the lead. However, it's not that big a deal, so I'd say this the end product looks good. The only thing I'd change is moving it from battles of attrition to battle of attrition: the article is titled in the singular and I'd rather not risk confusing a new reader. If you don't mind, I'll go ahead and make the changes. On to the next. Palindromedairy (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Added a further link to tactical, as what tactical means and how you separate it from strategy is one of the most common sources of confusion for people new to military history, the sort presumably reading this. Palindromedairy (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks OK and since I think you've compromised more than me I'll try to repay the favour. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Okay, on to the current paragraph two:

Poor weather delayed the beginning of the German attack until 21 February, but the Germans enjoyed initial success, capturing the defensive position of Fort Douaumont in the first three days of the offensive. Afterwards the German advance slowed, despite heavy French losses. By 6 March, 20 1⁄2 French divisions were in the RFV and a more extensive defence in depth had been constructed. Pétain ordered that no withdrawals were to be made and that counter-attacks were to be conducted, despite exposing French infantry to fire from the German artillery. By 29 March, French artillery on the west bank had begun a constant bombardment of German positions on the east bank, which caused many German infantry casualties.

Issues as I see them: 1) As discussed, whether Douaumont matters or not isn't clear. If it's important enough to be here, its significance needs to be clarified; if not, it should be removed. Offhand, I think it should stay but we should ensure its importance is not overstated.

I can't remember if that was me or not but it looks like the cliche version of the battle, the significance was that the first six days saw the biggest advance, including the fortuitous capture of Douaumont, then the French reinforcements forced the Germans to pause.Keith-264 (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

2) "20 1/2 French divisions": I dislike using divisions as an indicator of numbers because an unskilled reader won't know what that means, over and above the fact that not all the armies have the same sized division. I'd like to change that to a number of men, or add a X percentage of the French army qualifier to add some much needed context for the reader.

Fair enough but that's one of those recondite points you objected to earlier. I think an ignoramus can still work of that 20 divisions is a lot. Changing it to the number of men won't be easy without a source and we can't assume they were all at establishment.Keith-264 (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

3) Petain is mentioned in the lead, but neither linked nor identified (and, oddly enough, is not mentioned once anywhere else). Like Douaumont, if he belongs here (and I believe he does) he should be briefly identified in the text and linked to. Additionally, we don't need every major leader, but Nivelle belongs with him. Both men play major future roles in the army, and Verdun is the stepping stone to this. Nivelle comes later, so I'm ignoring him for the moment.

Agreed.

4) "By 29 March, French artillery on the west bank had begun a constant bombardment of German positions on the east bank, which caused many German infantry casualties." I dislike this whole sentence. The whole war is each side shooting at each other with artillery and causing may casualties. It's absolutely not key to a fundamental understanding of the battle: too micro. In addition, the next para covers it just fine, by explaining that the Germans widened their attack because the French artillery was worrying them. That gives action and reaction rather than just "anyways, some shooting occurred".

Actually no, it's not generic bang-bang, it was fundamental to the German failure to reach their objectives and the reason they tried their luck on the west bank. The German infantry casualties bit is important because casualty conservation was fundamental to Falky's plan. The French riposte was the first sign that ze plan! was going wrong.

5) As we're into March, I'd like a Voie Sacrée link, as per previous edits. No explanation needed in the body: the link alone serves.

I don't like it at all but I will give way.Keith-264 (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

As such:

Poor weather delayed the beginning of the German attack until 21 February but the Germans enjoyed initial success[it can't not be initial, this early in the battle], capturing Fort Douaumont--largest of the French forts in the combat zone[on the battlefield]--within the first three days of the offensive[simpler to give the day]. Afterwards the German advance slowed, despite heavy French losses[because of the arrival of French reinforcements]. By 6 March, X FRENCH MANPOWER[this is too cumbersome] were in the RFV and[four more defensive lines had been dug]a more extensive defence in depth had been constructed. Playing into the German strategy, French commander Philippe Pétain (It was the President Poincare, the generals weren't committed either way but were preparing one just in case. They did withdraw unilaterally from the Woevre to the foothills of the Meuse Heights in the south and east, in case the Territorial garrisons broke and ran and it was in the confusion of this withdrawal that Douaumont fell, because it was on a divisional boundary and both commanders assumed it was the others' responsibility) ordered Joffre that no withdrawals were to be made and that [German advances were to be]counter-attacks[ed]. were to be conducted. [Petain devised a noria system, to replace divisions after about 14 days in the line (earlier if they suffered many casualties) from Bar-le-Duc, along the road called Voie Sacrée after the war, to preserve their morale and make it easier to incorporate replacements. Joffre had reservations, because the system needed divisions from the reserve, intended for the forthcoming Somme offensive but had to acquiesce]However, his policy of constantly cycling[a cycle is constant]French reinforcements through the battle via the Voie Sacrée from Bar-le-Duc did much to keep the defenders rested and preserve French manpower as the battle wore on.

This should clarify roles and terrain features, while explaining how, while the French did what the Germans wanted, they did not break as the Germans planned. Thoughts? Palindromedairy (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I put alternatives in [ ] plus a few extras in brackets to explain things and lines through the bits made redundant. Poincare went mental when he visited and found that they weren't planning to hold the east back come what may, Joffre just passed it on. I'm off to bed now but thanks for this I rather enjoy it. Keith-264 (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Found some detail in Foley see this

Poor weather delayed the beginning of the German attack until 21 February but the German advance captured Fort Douaumont, the largest fort on the Meuse Heights on 25 February. The Germans had advanced 3 km (1.9 mi) on a 10 km (6.2 mi) front but had failed to capture the Meuse Heights, despite French casualties of 26,000 men by 27 February, against 25,000 German losses. From 27 February to 6 March, 190,000 French troops and 23,000 short tons (21,000 t) of supplies arrived along the Bar-le-Duc road (called the Voie Sacrée after the war) and a defence in depth had been established. Herr the local commander, supported by Joseph Joffre, had planned to evacuate the east bank but were overruled by the Prime Minister Aristide Briand and ordered to hold the heights. (The French withdrew from the Woevre Plain to the foothills of the heights in the south and east; in the confusion Douaumont fell, because it was on a divisional boundary and both commanders assumed it was the others' responsibility). Joffre ordered that no withdrawals were to be made and Petain ordered that German advances were to be counter-attacked, which conformed to German expectations. Petain devised a noria system, quickly to replace divisions if they suffered many casualties, to preserve their morale and make it easier to incorporate replacements; Joffre had to send divisions from the reserve, needed for the forthcoming Somme offensive.

Something like this? Keith-264 (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Translation (en) please

Suggest translating the Section Heading "région fortifiée de Verdun" from French/EU to read "fortified town of Verdun" or "Verdun fortified region" in plain English, per Wikipedia translation page; (Called entrenched camp of Verdun from the late nineteenth century, it took in August 1915, Verdun fortified region name)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You don't really think that an English reader can't understand it do you?Keith-264 (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Verdun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040813081743/http://www.third-reich-books.com:80/x-590a-verdun.htm to http://www.third-reich-books.com/x-590a-verdun.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313232657/http://www.panopixel.fr/page.php?30 to http://www.panopixel.fr/page.php?30
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140522232558/http://octant.u-bourgogne.fr/portail/documentsafb/dossiers/187AQ588-01/PDF/187AQ588-01.pdf to http://octant.u-bourgogne.fr/portail/documentsafb/dossiers/187AQ588-01/PDF/187AQ588-01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Spelling

Does Wikipedia use American or British spelling? Microsoft Word says "defences" should be spelled "defenses" Nedhudir (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nedhudir: It varies from article to article, but should be consistent within each article. There's more about this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. This particular article uses British English; there's a note about this at the top of this talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

End

According to French Wikipedia the 19th not 18th was the end of the battle. --JFCochin (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Wiki isn't a source. Keith-264 (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Entente or Allies.

Forgive me if I am wromg but I believe Allies with a capital A is more accurate here than Entente. "Allies" refers to the whole alliance against the "Central Powers" in the First World War and later came also to be used to mean the whole alliance against the "Axis Powers" in the Second World War. "Entente" means understanding which is different to an alliance and refers specifically to the "Entente Cordiale" between Britain and France only which refers to more than the 1914-18 War i.e also to peace time diplomacy. "Allies" I know smacks of one sidedness and the victors' view of history but " Entente" rather ignores the other allies of France and Britain. On the Western Front this means the independent Dominions of the British Crown (Canada,Australia,New Zealand,South Africa and Newfoundland) as well as Belgium and Portugal.On the other fronts it includes Russia,Italy,Japan,Serbia,Romania etc."Allies" is well understood and is a traditional term but I am not sure "Entente" has quite the same immediate recognition. I concede that later in the War it rather leaves USA out as they were not strictly speaking allies of Britain and France but "co-belligerents," not being at war with Austria-Hungary, Turkey or Bulgaria. Spinney Hill (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The Allies refers to all of the states against Germany; Belgium and the US weren't part of the Entente but Britain, France and Russia were Entente powers as well as part of the Allies. British dominions weren't independent Allies, they were part of Britain so part of the Entente. When the three Entente powers are mentioned, Entente and Ally are synonymous.Keith-264 (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what's the link between your topics and mine, a co-worker told me that working with French Interior Ministry people who believed they did not need an interpreter, a Mexican cop told them "no entiendo" and the French just said the same thing again louder, since entender in Spanish means understanding, but entendre in French means hearing, while it's comprendre that means understanding, "s'entendre" meaning to get along or to agree in order to do something, so it's more like an agreement, though you don't find that word much outside of early XXth Century history. I am not sure if the Entente Cordiale and the Triple Entente is the same, and I don't know which countries were in Verdun besides Germany, the Austrian Hungarian Empire and France, but Pearl Harbour was the anniversary of the US declaration of war on the Austrian Hungarian Empire, though I don't know if they sent any soldiers to the Italian Front, and I don't think the USA were in (the First Battle of) Verdun (if it was in 1916) since Zimmermann sent his Telegram in 1917, and in 1916 the US Army was busy looking for Pancho Villa. Then I noticed Wikipedia's far from perfect, though since you talk about the other World War, I'm afraid it's not always better in English than in French regarding French history. --JFCochin (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Tranchee des baionnettes01.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Flags in Infobox

Should the flag of the home country of the generals be shown ?, It is in other battles but when I wrote it it got reverted back and deleted Consistency hobgoblin (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No. Please see: [13] and [14]. The use of flags here would be merely decorative, conveying no useful information because all the German Commanders were German and all the French Commanders French. It would be a different case for battles where there are several belligerents on one or both sides, when flags would be useful to distinguish the nationality of the relevant Commanders, e.g. Battle of the Somme. Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

But for some like the battle of Liege the flag of the home country is there ?, Should I change it ? Consistency hobgoblin (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I've looked at that page, but yes, it should be changed. regards Mztourist (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

No, please, it will make the infobox look like a party rally again. Keith-264 (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source

@Cortagravatas:

User:Keith-264 is correct. Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cortagravatas: That's more like it, thanks Keith-264 (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Cortagravatas Thanks for formatting my source reference. I removed the title from the "Further reading" section, which apparently contains only sources not referenced in the text. I also corrected the casualty figures, as Schwencke's figures (which I checked again) add up to 2,742, thereof 381 killed, 2,170 wounded and 191 missing. Consider informing readers that the link to the online publication works only with Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox browser. —Preceding undated comment added 10:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Cortagravatas (talk)

Did I leave it in FR? Apols. I tend to move books/sources originally in the bibliography to FR if a rewrite leaves them un-cited [15] looked here for including browser but won't the Bibliotek address be universal? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Gave that section another ce now that I'm awake. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

In popular media section

@Stevboat: Our colleague Stevboat wants a popular media section any opinions? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

the precedent has been set by several other battles having a in popular media page (see sack of rome 1527, battle of wizna, siege of vienna) therefore it belongs to stay on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevboat (talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I think if reliable sources can be added showing that there is due weight in adding such information, that it should be considered. That other similar articles have such sections does not mean it should be included by default; it should stand on its own merits, not by comparing it to something in another article. - Aoidh (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I see no weight at all and would prefer it if Stev devoted his energies to something more important like writing articles on the French counter-offensives, since I'm bogged down elsewhere. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the need for such a section, but if WP:DUE is met then it can go in. However, I do not regard two obscure rock songs as in any way meeting WP:DUE Mztourist (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• The fact that other articles have something similar means nothing here; each subject has its own scale of what's notable in its scope. I like Sabaton myself, but my liking something doesn't give it significance. What would show that this media is notable? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• if its notable elsewhere that sets precedent to have it included elsewhere, it allows for further research onto topics because you get to sabatons page, see their song about lets say passchendale and then delve into research about that if you are further inclined to. and by your logic that precedent, then how is anything objectively notable? if there was no precedent set what if I think the commanders names wasn´t notable. I can make an argument that it wasn't about them, but the men fighting the battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevboat (talk • contribs) 12:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Precedent about having a section is one thing, the notability of the contents is another. Notability is determined by Reliable Sources not the opinion or mere editors like us. Can you find a RS on Verdun that adverts to Sabaton? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Anywikiuser: A bit of an abrupt edit, would you like to discuss it here? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The section is a mess while omitting crucial details. Despite being about 'Commemoration' it actually starts with events that happened during the battle itself, in 1916. I found a way to fit Nivelle's quote into the narrative of the battle. The only reason I dropped Petain's quote is that I couldn't fit it into either that section or the narrative of the battle.

The stuff about Denizot's statistics doesn't belong there either. I guess it's giving some idea on the area that was devastated but it's not very clear. It could go in the 'Analysis' section but it doesn't add a great deal of information.

The section about Petain's analysis belongs in the analysis section, though I made a slight mistake by moving the Dien Bien Phu sentence. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not keen on commemoration sections so I don't look at them too closely. I've put your edit back and will give it a longer look tomorrow. Thanks for taking the trouble. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Tidied prose and ce several sections.Keith-264 (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

recent edits

@DuncanHill: Instead of snide remarks about ownership, why don't you install the Highlight duplicate wikilinks script? It'll save you a lot of bother. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Will it help me make false claims about duplicates? Will it help me leave things unlined, or use an identical piped name for different places? Now how about you actually accept that you are not infallible, and that other editors don't exist solely for you to have a go at when they dare to touch your precious prose. DuncanHill (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop duplicating wikilinks, stop making self-serving inferences about my motives and don't be so precious. Install the script and see what difference it makes; it's the constructive thing to do. Keith-264 (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The links were hidden by piping, so it was not at all clear to the reader that they had been linked. We should not require readers to install scripts so they can understand obscure link styles. Most readers will have neither your knowledge nor your specialised tools, try to respect that. DuncanHill (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

"Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." [16] The script highlights duplicate wikilinks; the clue is in the title, it's an editing, not a reading tool. You could have checked when linking and saved both of us the trouble of remedying your duplications. As I pointed out with Le Mort Homme, things were different when I re-edited the article several years ago; I linked to the best approximation to the term. Your negative assumptions and arrogant assertion to be helping "readers" is disappointing, you should try to assume good faith and communicate. It's a B-class article with considerable room for improvement, which some of your edits have addressed; I have thanked you for these. Keith-264 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I was reading the article, I couldn't see links, so I linked. Perhaps you could have asked yourself why a reader (me) wouldn't realise that the links already existed in hidden form. But no, you couldn't. I'm sure you edit in "good faith" - that is that you believe that what you do is right and beneficial, the trouble is you seem unable to accept that others don't see things the way you do, or that their positions may have any validity. That is why I say you OWN this, and many other, articles. There are plenty more links that should be made - to Corps etc - but I won't bother anymore, you'll be glad to know. I won't be reading the article again if I can help it, I'm obviously not the sort of reader you want. DuncanHill (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I told you, it's B class so has many deficiencies; it's overdue for a spring clean. You flew off the handle despite me only reverting your duplicate links. I hope you change your mind, I'm doing a new article for the French counter-attack in September 1916, fresh eyes would be welcome. Keith-264 (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Casualties section.

I have been checking WW1 articles, and have found a strange behaviour in some casualties sections. Especially regarding British and German casualties reports and claims. Some content have been "changed" from the shown in the source itself; and some Links and References have been used in a wrong manner. Regarding this article, I will check one by one the numbers placed in the casualties section with the literal content of the Book cited. I have just noticed that a Grant, R. G reference used, cite 343,000 German Losses at page 276. But user Keith reverted the edit and erased the reference. So please stop that behaviour just use the infobox to place the content put on the main body of the article.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Just checked the 2005 Book again, no mention of 343,000. Unless you have a Source for that dont disrupt the current vertion. Here Mr.User200 (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

If you read the casualties section and the Casualty criteria section following you will see first a list of sources which give casualties then the derivation of some of those figures. You have no case for removing the casualty ranges in the infobox. I do not have a copy of Grant so I can't comment on your claim, only remind you that it is a tertiary source when Wiki prefers secondary sources. Why have you removed the ranges in the infobox? Keith-264 (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Because the 434,000 German casualties "said" by R. G Grant in the last version edit, have as reference this Book and Page and it says 355,000 german and 400,00 French. In the left at p. 276. Dont know and care if was a typo error or maybe just someone changed the figure and other editors kept editing over and over. This already have been fixed right now.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

They aren't the same as the figures given in other sources are you ignoring them? Keith-264 (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

.No, I´m talking about main content of the casualties section. The previous version of the article was plain wrong there are no mention of Grant backing those 434,000 german losses in the Sources or elsewhere. I have just corrected that. Regarding the Infobox you could used the ranges i dont care. But using the content in the article, right now.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Churchill uses the 403,000 figure for the French too. So the Max range for France should be 400,000.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

We should use the lowest and highest numbers in the casualties section but also take account of the section on casualty criteria. If it's too awkward, I will combine the data from both. Keith-264 (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)